What you’re essentially asking, although not directly proportional, is like how big a screen do you need to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p TV presentations.

In a nutshell, depends on where one sits and your visual acuity. All aspects of this have been discussed in prior pages on this thread (which really isn't that long, yet) as well as even more esoteric things like my dissatisfaction with some graphs and charts that some *pundits* hold as religious theology but, are not always the best available assessment tool….

I know you're affiliated with sony, but Film>>>digital. Sorry. The only reason the industry is moving to digital cameras is because of money. These billion dollar studios are so damn cheap with everything. Have you seen some bluray cases? Wow. WB used a blank disc cover for Wrath Of The Titans. I thought it was a pirated copy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Wow, quite impressive at first glance. To me the most significant thing is not just the hardware (REDRAY player) but the fact that if one truly loves motion pictures as a form of escapism and entertainment, this paradigm is potentially a watershed event.

What I mean is that, face it, your next Steven Spielberg, Marty Scorsese etc. is an indie filmmaker who, in the past, has had to overcome tremendous hurdles in order to get into *the studio system* and have his work distributed. This Odemax thing should change that, for the better.

One thing which I’ve never been happy with is the self-limiting nature of the current motion picture business which is all about the majors not taking any risks and doing everything they can to insulate themselves against risk….co-financing, etc. This leads to a plethora of remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels…many of which are just crap but they are safe bets. Not to mention, the practice of mediocre 3D or 3D as an after-thought because some are worried about pushing the envelope rather than taking full advantage of the extra-dimensional technology which is available to them with good stereographers as true collaborators.

As far as the RED product goes, it’s apparent that the lynch-pin to the whole process of making it work is their codec and if that is as good as the advertisement claims, well then, I’m duly impressed.

In the Tech Specs though, one thing I notice that is kind of weird is that for the Colorimetry they only list ITU-R B.T.709 which would seem rather restricting when you’re talking about a Quality presentation, which is what RED is always about….especially on those really BIG screens.

Also, I don’t see any news about the RED laser projector, and I don’t have time now to read any discussion on their forum about the REDRAY announcement but, I think there are a lot of projection people in the consumer electronics business out there who are breathing a big sigh of relief on the absence of news on that competitive front.

Which brings me to my question. Isn't the 4K standard going to be REC 2020? Current Displays are using the HD standard but when the standard is set for 4K im sure future displays will be compatible?

Anyway. The RED announcement is nice. In that it bring a powerful tool for independent filmakers. They now have their own hub for their content. But for me im not really interested. I like what they're doing, but if im going to invest in 4K in a few years it wont be RED.

Im waiting to see what sony/BDA announces at CES.

EDIT- The most important thing to me is physical copies of everything which RED wont have. Thats an automatic no for me.

I know you're affiliated with sony, but Film>>>digital. Sorry. The only reason the industry is moving to digital cameras is because of money. These billion dollar studios are so damn cheap with everything. Have you seen some bluray cases? Wow. WB used a blank disc cover for Wrath Of The Titans. I thought it was a pirated copy.

Which brings me to my question. Isn't the 4K standard going to be REC 2020? Current Displays are using the HD standard but when the standard is set for 4K im sure future displays will be compatible?

Anyway. The RED announcement is nice. In that it bring a powerful tool for independent filmakers. They now have their own hub for their content. But for me im not really interested. I like what they're doing, but if im going to invest in 4K in a few years it wont be RED.

Im waiting to see what sony/BDA announces at CES.

EDIT- The most important thing to me is physical copies of everything which RED wont have. Thats an automatic no for me.

And streaming at 2.5MB? Heh.

I also was surprised to see the Rec 709 colorimetry, versus the new Rec 2020 spec when coupled with the YCbCr 12-bit 4:2:2 color bit depth.

Perhaps this is because they are planning it to be paired with a majority of displays that are still calibrated to Rec 709?

except for some of his math being wrong he also starts with three premises that are completely wrong and I disagree with

1) he said ". This is why you can read your computer screen from where you're sitting, but not if you're on the other side of the room. Everyone is different, but the average person with 20/20 vision can resolve 1 arcminute. One arcminute is 1/60th a degree"

the one arcminute comes from the Snell chart and is for the line size in 20/20 vision. On that we agree, but if someone has 20/20 that means that he can see those lines way too clearly and determine each letter, now if we move to the next line, the guy might not be able to differentiate an F from a P but he can still see that there are letters there and the lines there will be much smaller than 1 arcminute.

note: he also talks about "One arcminute of resolution is a best-case scenario." but I will dismiss it since there are people with better than 20/20 vision but they are the minority and he did discuss “average earlier.

2) he talks about "This math ... tells you that you can't see individual pixels" but why would you want to see individual pixels, if I have a 50 inch screen and it is comprised of 4 pixels I can see individual pixels but no detail, you need to have pixels that are much smaller then what can clearly be resolved or it will mask the detail in the image (not to mention be extremely distracting) because it won't just lose detail that can be resolved but detail that can.

3) he decided "So that's the advantage of 4K: you can sit way closer to your television (which no one will), or you can get a way bigger television (also unlikely). "

but let's be honest, have you ever had people sitting closer? I have seen it often enough, someone lying on the floor in front of the couch because there was no space for it or a kid taking a stool and sitting closer (even with gaming, when I use my move I am not on the couch but a couple of feet closer).

And how about TVs, now when you get into projectors it tends to be limited by the room and so you can't really get much bigger but with TVs, everyone I know when they replaced the TV it got bigger. Look at the TV sizes, they are constantly getting bigger, how can anyone imply if Joe has a 50" TV today that in a few years when he buys a new one Joe won't go with a 60" (for example).
I also don’t get why he obviously agrees with 4K for theatres but he thinks the common Joe should sit way too far from a small screen at home.

Personally I agree with “or just looking at your TV, tells you that you can't see individual pixels” and I have said it myself. Take a BD that is grainy, if looking at it closer you see the film grain but not from the distance you care about, then you don’t need and won’t benefit from 4k, if you do then you will benefit from 4k since the pixels are way too apparent at that size/distance and it is up to you if you care and willing to spend the $ for it.

except for some of his math being wrong he also starts with three premises that are completely wrong and I disagree with

1) he said ". This is why you can read your computer screen from where you're sitting, but not if you're on the other side of the room. Everyone is different, but the average person with 20/20 vision can resolve 1 arcminute. One arcminute is 1/60th a degree"

the one arcminute comes from the Snell chart and is for the line size in 20/20 vision. On that we agree, but if someone has 20/20 that means that he can see those lines way too clearly and determine each letter, now if we move to the next line, the guy might not be able to differentiate an F from a P but he can still see that there are letters there and the lines there will be much smaller than 1 arcminute.

note: he also talks about "One arcminute of resolution is a best-case scenario." but I will dismiss it since there are people with better than 20/20 vision but they are the minority and he did discuss “average earlier.

2) he talks about "This math ... tells you that you can't see individual pixels" but why would you want to see individual pixels, if I have a 50 inch screen and it is comprised of 4 pixels I can see individual pixels but no detail, you need to have pixels that are much smaller then what can clearly be resolved or it will mask the detail in the image (not to mention be extremely distracting) because it won't just lose detail that can be resolved but detail that can.

3) he decided "So that's the advantage of 4K: you can sit way closer to your television (which no one will), or you can get a way bigger television (also unlikely). "

but let's be honest, have you ever had people sitting closer? I have seen it often enough, someone lying on the floor in front of the couch because there was no space for it or a kid taking a stool and sitting closer (even with gaming, when I use my move I am not on the couch but a couple of feet closer).

And how about TVs, now when you get into projectors it tends to be limited by the room and so you can't really get much bigger but with TVs, everyone I know when they replaced the TV it got bigger. Look at the TV sizes, they are constantly getting bigger, how can anyone imply if Joe has a 50" TV today that in a few years when he buys a new one Joe won't go with a 60" (for example).
I also don’t get why he obviously agrees with 4K for theatres but he thinks the common Joe should sit way too far from a small screen at home.

Personally I agree with “or just looking at your TV, tells you that you can't see individual pixels” and I have said it myself. Take a BD that is grainy, if looking at it closer you see the film grain but not from the distance you care about, then you don’t need and won’t benefit from 4k, if you do then you will benefit from 4k since the pixels are way too apparent at that size/distance and it is up to you if you care and willing to spend the $ for it.

As someone w/ an 82" display at 11ft away, I tend to agree w/ most of what you said. Also, let's face reality-if it's even the slightest improvement, we here are all over it LOL(at least once the prices become commoditized)!

It's too expensive and most people can't tell the difference anyway. When Panavision came out with a process for blowing up 35mm to 70mm around 1970, that spelled the end of 65mm origination for the most part. (The extra 5mm were originally for the 6-track magnetic soundtrack, so the format is 70mm in projection, but 65mm in origination.)

Not including the few experiments in the 1930s, but including a few foreign films that got release in the U.S., there were only 75 films that were actually shot in 65mm since Oklahoma in 1955. There were about another 350 that were shot in 35mm and blown-up to 70mm in select releases.

The primary reason for 70mm release (and mostly from 35mm blowups) was to get the six magnetic soundtracks, although there is also an advantage to the larger 70mm format because you can get more light behind the frame in projection. But remember, when this format was invented it was designed for roadshow theaters, that tended to be very large - as many as 5000 seats and usually not smaller than 1500 seats. Theatres and screens sizes are much smaller since the advent of the multiplex in the 1970s.

When digital sound came along beginning with Dick Tracy in 1990, that triggered the beginning of the end of the 70mm blow up era. It was far cheaper to make a digital print (which had an optical soundtrack or time code) than to stripe a mag track.

Ron Howard tried to revive the format in 1992 with "Far and Away", but the reality was that it simply didn't look that much better than 35mm origination and that film, which did not do well at the boxoffice, probably hurt the 70mm cause more than it helped.

Since then, there was Baraka in 1993, Hamlet in 1996, Samsara in 2012 (although never actually released in 70mm) and the recent "The Master", which looked like complete crap when I saw it in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC. The print had positive dirt from end-to-end.

The reality is that for better or worse, the age of film is ending. Most of the major studios will not make any film prints at all after 2013. 70mm (actually 65mm) origination has been pretty much a dead format (aside from IMAX) for the last 40 years. Only 10 non-IMAX films have originated in that format since then (and two of those were foreign films). And even if filmmakers wanted to continue to shoot film, they might not be able to. It's doubtful that Kodak will still produce motion picture film when and if they emerge from bankruptcy and Agfa isn't in much better shape. And IMAX is moving away from film as well. All of the new "Liemax" theatres are digital only. When was the last true IMAX theatre built in the U.S.? I don't know the answer to that, but I bet it's not recently.

the recent "The Master", which looked like complete crap when I saw it in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC. The print had positive dirt from end-to-end.

Man, that is a bummer but I don't feel quite as bad having missed it in on 70mm now.

I know in one interviews, Ron Fricke or Mark Magidson (I can't remember which) commented that they chose 4K projection because they still felt that it provided a better theatrical experience than cutting 70mm prints and he quoted that exact reason. In fact, I remember being quite surprised by that.

No formal affiliation like requiring the need to fill in blanks on an IRS 1040 tax form. Though, I do miss the offered (and sometimes accepted) perks from Vice Presidents and even Presidents, when I did voluntarily aid their home entertainment causes. I truly admire the Pictures organization and other than one obnoxiously arrogant individual, I always had a good relationship with everyone from low level staffers on up to upper level executives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saprano

...The only reason the industry is moving to digital cameras is because of money. These billion dollar studios are so damn cheap with everything. Have you seen some bluray cases? Wow. WB used a blank disc cover for Wrath Of The Titans. I thought it was a pirated copy...

lol, well they aren’t non-profit organizations whose mission it is to save lives and stamp out disease, that’s for sure.

Everything’s geared toward making or saving money in the motion picture business. For example, don’t be surprised when DCPs are no longer sent in the mail to theaters on hard disc drives but rather, the files will be beamed down to the theater from satellite. At least the environment will benefit from that procedure.

To be fair, in the past there has been a rather noticeable disparity in quality between film and digital cameras, but now with the RED Epic and Sony F65 these latest digital cameras equal or actually exceed some characteristics of film cameras. For example, with the proper settings, there is higher dynamic range and higher MTF than film.

I believe with further advances in sensor technology, it is inevitable that digital cameras will equal or surpass all parameters as compared to the best film cameras.

after only 2 ½ days following the big News announcement that Q&A is already 77 pages long and I’ve only read your linked post and the first page. I’ll never get through that thing given my time allotment for the product.

To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

As a dummy, I take issue with the “stupid” (repeatedly used) characterization because it has an insulting judgmental air to it. Plus, in essence, it criticizes how passionate someone is about their particular hobby…be it home theater or anything else. I dislike using analogies because they are never bulletproof; nevertheless, to make a point, I’m reminded of something else totally out of the videophile realm.

Back in the day, I was a serious, avid off-road motorcycle enthusiast. I would spend hours doing engine and suspension upgrades to my bike in order to achieve an increase in performance…albeit marginal (depending on one’s perspective, which is the key). I welcomed the opportunity to have those aftermarket parts to make those modifications because I was so passionate about racing. Some were simply bolt on, whereas others involved more advanced skills like heliarc welding to accomplish, but the cost or effort didn’t matter to me, since I had a real need for speed….unlike some actor in a movie.

Conversely, I knew Joe6packs who walked into their local motorcycle shop to purchase a motorcycle, geared up and fooled around in the dirt on weekends. Joe6packs who never raced in a single organized/sanctioned event, never rode injured, and left their bikes pretty much stock from the day they bought them. Nothing wrong with the path they chose as compared to me, BUT they never labeled the aftermarket companies as being “stupid”….and, by logical extension….me being “stupid”, for gladly taking advantage of those companies’ latest offerings.

At the end of the day, it comes down to your wallet and how passionate you are…whether you are chasing a couple additional horsepower or the perfect picture.

To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Whatever happens it is looking like a format war. Cannot see how that would not be the case with latest developments.

It would become very interesting if one of the majors broke ranks and actually supplied content vis-a-vis that Odemax distribution system.

Hey, I had a very liberating weekend . I rooted for Swansee City, West Ham, Everton, and Reading. All in all, 3 out of 4 worked out my way . And even though Reading lost to ManU, the first half was quite exciting for me as a neutral observer.

To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

Yeah I saw that later. I'd like to see 60 fps but atleast it's more than 24 fps.

The 60fps brings up something else which just may affect Jim Cameron’s Avatar 2, i.e. The DCI’s statement that “The maximum compressed bit rate for support of all proposed frame rates should be 500 Mb/sec”, which I mentioned back here –http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....ci#post6639136

You see, nobody really knows (without at least some testing) if 500 Mb/sec will be adequate for a 60fps 3D movie and in fact, some smart people don’t think that it will be sufficient, which, if they're correct, would in turn lead to softening of the imagery with that cap...which is counterproductive to shooting at 60fps in the gol-dang first place.

Anyway, it’s been theorized by some that one of the reasons why P.J.’s team chose 48fps over 60fps was because somebody ran the numbers and realized that with shooting at 48fps, there would be no picture quality problems if the current spec was simply doubled and the actual implementation would then only require a relatively inexpensive projector system upgrade (which would be backwards compatible) in order to exhibit the 3D version. It will be interesting to see how Avatar 2 develops with its HFR outcome.

To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

and although I don’t notice the Press Release mentioning it, the flick was shown on a new type of screen which was described at the past SMPTE Technical Conference by Real D, the patent owner.. http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7898734

To Whom It May Concern - The offers/inquires are appreciated; however, I no longer work only for perks from studio-based home entertainment companies.

I haven’t watched you guys play this year but FWIW I believe that Norwich has always been better than its record suggests. Looking at your upcoming schedule you certainly have a tough row to hoe and you might very well be clinging on for dear life come the end of the season.
Hang in there buddy!